Blumenthal: Contact Murkowski, Collins, McCain To Save Roe v. Wade

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said the recent retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is not a drill. And if Americans who believe in the reproductive rights —the human rights—of women don’t take action, the Trump administration will likely appoint a new justice who will roll back Roe v. Wade.

Blumenthal brought that urgent message to the New Haven headquarters of the Planned Parenthood of Southern New England Monday in an effort to galvanize people to contact three Republican senators he believes will help hold the line on refusing to vet a Trump nominee to replace Justice Kennedy justice before the November election cycle is complete.

Blumenthal noted that the next justice likely will serve throughout the rest of the lives of all the adults in the room and possibly the lives of their children.

“The president of the United States is not going to ask questions about Roe v. Wade,” Blumenthal said Monday. “He doesn’t need to ask those questions. Every one of the nominees on the list has been screened to meet the litmus test that the president himself has articulated again and again, by saying he will appoint only someone who will automatically overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Blumenthal invoked the name of Geraldine “Gerri” Santoro, who died in a Connecticut motel after bled to death from a botched illegal abortion in 1964. Crime scene photos of her dead body became a symbol for the pro-choice movement.

The senator also said that a Trump-appointed justice will also help overturn the health care protections provided by the Affordable Care Act, particularly for the millions of Americans who suffer from a pre-existing health condition that might otherwise prevent them from obtaining health insurance.

“We need now a call to action to make sure Americans understand what’s at risk—basic human rights, reproductive rights—so that we avoid going back to the dark times when abortion was criminalized,” he said. He called on people to contact Republican U.S. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John McCain of Arizona. All three broke with their party over an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Blumenthal predicted they might break ranks again on vetting a justice who will repeal Roe v. Wade.

Susan Lloyd Yolen, vice president of public policy and advocacy for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said that a conservative court overturning might have a less direct impact in Connecticut, where a woman’s right to choose abortion is protected. But such protections don’t exist in neighboring states like Rhode Island. Rolling back Roe v. Wade could mean more women traveling to Connecticut seeking abortion services.

A Supreme Court rollback would put such services out of reach low income and women of color, particularly in the Midwest and the South where access to abortion is difficult because of restrictive laws and the lack of health facilities.

“Just affording it is a challenge for folks who have no insurance coverage,” Yolen said. She also noted that most abortion patients are in their 20s and 30s, not teenagers, and most abortions are done within the first trimester. The procedure can cost as much as $600 without insurance.

“There’s already a lot of travel to other states seeking the procedure,” she said of the states that have restrictions designed to deter women from choosing abortion. She said should the protections be rolled back further, people might have to return to the days when there was an underground referral process, where clergy and other supporters helped raise funds to help women get to states where an abortion could be had safely. She said a lot of health facilities and doctors that provide abortion services now weren’t practicing prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade.

“It’s more than I want to think about now,” Yolen, who has been with Planned Parenthood of Southern New England for 30 years. “That’s why we have to fight this now. It has to be fended off.”

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 2, 2018 5:39pm

“Blumenthal invoked the name of Geraldine “Gerri” Santoro, who died in a Connecticut motel after bled to death from a botched illegal abortion in 1964. Crime scene photos of her dead body became a symbol for the pro-choice movement.”

How about the 60 MILLION childern that Roe has killed?

posted by: wendy1 on July 2, 2018 7:19pm

Blu—-who is worth 86 million, according to the NYTIMES, should help fund PP which has a legal battle ahead. He so far is all talk and he knows Congress is useless but he’s still trying to con us.

@Tim—I only wish men could get pregnant. I suggest you read Ten Billion by Stephen Emmett, a short non-fiction paperback.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 2, 2018 7:58pm

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 2, 2018 6:39pm “Blumenthal invoked the name of Geraldine “Gerri” Santoro, who died in a Connecticut motel after bled to death from a botched illegal abortion in 1964. Crime scene photos of her dead body became a symbol for the pro-choice movement.”

How about the 60 MILLION childern that Roe has killed?

Where can I find that 60 MILLION children that Roe has killed?

posted by: Noteworthy on July 2, 2018 8:52pm

Hey - it’s not Friday - oh wait, it’s Monday so it’s time for another useless article featuring Dick Blumenthal and his never ending outrage over something scheduled for Mondays and Fridays - he only works Tuesday afternoon through Thursday. 138 a year. The rest of the time, he poses with issues - and tells us how hard he’s going to fight this or that - how bad Trump and the GOP are.

Note to Dick: The next supreme court judge is not going to be approved if his stated opinion is that he will overturn Roe. Quit making this an issue which it is not. Stop posing with issues and do something. Accomplish something.

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 3, 2018 5:54am

Threefifths:

In your wife’s beauty cream, your children’s vaccines, in the cookies that you eat, the soda that you drink, and in the candy that your children eat.

posted by: JCFremont on July 3, 2018 7:07am

How about we call a “trough a trough” and stop with the pro-choice nonsense and just argue the economics. If those who want abortion on demand want to point at opponents who apparently all want to cut social programs then find lets talk economics. That was part of Margret Sanger’s argument. Recently Iceland announced they will be eradicating down-syndrome. How, they have a prenatal test. OK how many tests should be given to expectant mothers? Are they mentally fit, economically fit. Let’s look at potential fathers as well. Under the utopia of universal healthcare how long will it be the progressives that laugh at you when your yelling about staying out of my body.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 3, 2018 7:28am

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 3, 2018 6:54am

Threefifths:

In your wife’s beauty cream, your children’s vaccines, in the cookies that you eat, the soda that you drink, and in the candy that your children eat.

That is not my question.The question to you is where can I find that 60 MILLION children that Roe has killed?

How about groups like the ’Army of God’ Anti-Abortion Organization That Produces a Manual Advocating Violence against Clinics, Providers run by Reverend Donald Spitz.- Government documents will describe Spitz as the “webmaster” of the Army of God Web site, and the spiritual advisor to former minister Paul Hill, who will later be convicted of murdering a physician and his bodyguard.

And by the way I glad you used snopes.It just prove that your post on In your wife’s beauty cream, your children’s vaccines, in the cookies that you eat, the soda that you drink, and in the candy that your children eat. Is fake News.

posted by: ClassActionToo on July 3, 2018 7:56am

Roe v Wade is slowly but surely being diminished and eventually will be overturned. With their screams, their protests and their ever-desperate gnashing of teeth, the “Pro-Abortion faction sees the increasingly focused handwriting on the wall. As the decision rendered in 1973 makes clear, “A woman’s right to choose to have an abortion was not considered an absolute right.” Abortion was to be closely monitored and was considered a “balancing act” between the rights of the mother and that of the unborn. This balance was in the mother’s favor through the earliest months of pregnancy but began to level off as the pregnancy moved through the middle and final months. The unborn was considered a “non-person” through the first trimester but gained more “person” status, (and therefore more rights), as the pregnancy moved into the second and third trimesters. This was in 1973. The science concerning the fetus’s viability and his/her’s intellectual/emotional/physical awareness has grown considerably since that time, continually stretching the parameters of the great question, “When is unborn life considered human?”. Many, not all of course, believe that human life begins at conception, even before viability outside the womb. Science seems to be inching ever closer to some semblance of that conclusion as well. The SCOTUS judges will need a compelling reason to overturn the established law of Roe v. Wade. I think they will eventually find their compelling reason in the ever developing, science-based understanding of the world of the unborn. Reason enough.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 3, 2018 8:42am

posted by: ClassActionToo on July 3, 2018 8:56am

Science seems to be inching ever closer to some semblance of that conclusion as well.

WHY SCIENCE CAN’T SAY WHEN A BABY’S LIFE BEGINS

SCOTT GILBERT WAS walking through the halls of Swarthmore when he saw the poster, from a campus religious group: “Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries about when personhood begins,” it read. “But scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization.” What troubled Gilbert, who is a developmental biologist, was the assertion that “scientists know.” “I couldn’t say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists don’t have a consensus,” he says.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 3, 2018 8:43am

posted by: alphabravocharlie on July 3, 2018 9:50am

Newsflash Lyin Dick, we don’t have human rights in the US, we have constitutional rights, you know, free speech, right to bare arms, right to counsel, right against self incrimination, you know, all that stuff that’s actually WRITTEN in the constitution. I scanned the text again and couldn’t find reproductive rights anywhere in there. If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not a constitutional right.

posted by: ClassActionToo on July 3, 2018 10:38am

To THREEFIFTHS: The point is that since 1973 the Supreme Court has used the viability of the fetus as one measure for when to declare the unborn a non-person with little or no rights, as opposed to a person with some or equal rights to the mother. Since that time, science has expanded their understanding of what and who the unborn is. For the sake of argument, if science is never able to definitively place the “human” label timestamp on a fetus, then to my mind that means that at or soon after conception the fetus could be an actual living, heart beating person. They just do not know, but can’t say one way or another. I do think that the SCOTUS will eventually narrow the availability of legal, state-sanctioned abortions. Again, I believe that humanity begins at conception, but I know others do not. As to Carlin, one of my all-time favs, but like many show business individuals, funny/talented, but inconsequential and wrong. Most conservatives I know and associate with (as well as most people I know and associate with, even liberals) are caring, good people. THX.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 3, 2018 4:36pm

@ClassActionToo

Jodi Jacobson said it well.

Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point

The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can’t reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women.But the phrase is highly—and purposefully—misleading because it confuses simple biological cell division both with actual pregnancy and with actual, legal personhood, which are all very different things.The question is not when life begins. That just obfuscates the real issues.

When does pregnancy begin? Does personhood begin at conception? Is a fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends? Do women need “evidence” that if they are pregnant, odds are they are going to have a baby? Do women have the moral agency and fundamental rights to decide whether or not to commit themselves not only to the development of a life within their own bodies, but to a lifelong tie to another human being once a child is born? Pregnancy begins at implantation. Human life has to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo. Fertilized eggs take between six to 12 days to implant in the uterine lining. There simply is no pregnancy until this happens, which is why any method that prevents fertilization or implantation can not cause an abortion. A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully impant and end in spontaneous miscarriage (and before a woman even knows she is pregnant) because of insufficient hormone levels or an non-viable egg or for some other reason. Part One. .

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 3, 2018 4:42pm

Part Two.

Hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, works to prevent fertilization in the first place. If you were really, really worried, therefore, about abortion at any stage, you would be a strong supporter of universal access to contraception, and to universal and easy access to emergency contraception, which needs to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse to prevent fertilization from taking place.Anti-choicers are, of course, against both birth control and emergency contraception,

Again, I believe that humanity begins at conception, but I know others do not.

And this is way those who believe that humanity begins at conception do not have to have a abortion or use contraception.

As to Carlin, one of my all-time favs, but like many show business individuals, funny/talented, but inconsequential and wrong. Most conservatives I know and associate with (as well as most people I know and associate with, even liberals) are caring, good people. THX.

In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion would not be “banned”. It would revert fully to state legislatures—which is where it always belonged. READ THE 10th AMENDMENT to the US CONSTITUTION (part of Bill of Rights): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Regulation of Abortion, ‘privacy’, marriage and ‘gender ideology’ are not mentioned—and therefore belong to the States. **FOR FURTHER READING: “Court rulings carry no weight when they defy the Constitution, and states should simply refuse to enforce them.” https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/11/roe-v-wade-a-nullification-issue/ In Connecticut we have laws on the books that say if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion still will be legal. And if a more conservative state wishes to outlaw abortion altogether, that is be THEIR right. Per the US Constitution, STATES have a right to be let alone from FEDERAL interference on any ‘right’ not specifically granted to the Federal govt. President Trump said he won’t be asking the candidates about their positions on Roe v. Wade —but he SHOULD ask them if they will defend the 10th Amendment. The pro-life vs pro-choice LEGAL battle belongs at the state—not federal—level.

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 3, 2018 8:01pm

Threefifths: He who is human must be human from the beginning or he would not be human in the end.

As far as contraception, it is widely recognized to cause more abortions for it is not entirely effective at preventing pregnancies. So, those who would have sex with the intent of not having a family with which to begin or more likely to abort the natural end for which sex is ordered in the end when the contraception fails. Considering that the fertility rate is currently negative in America, and I must presume that most Americans are having contraceptive sex, more abortions are likely to occur than sex that has been traditionally and correctly ordered to the rearing of children in marriage. In other words, the more sex a society has outside of its natural end the more abortions are likely to occur precisely because of the mentality that thinks that chemically altering reproductive organs not to work properly is moral or even an objective good for women’s’ health. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between the chemical contraceptive mentality and those who would seek to change nature herself. But I digress… Peace, which is the end to which we all must strive.

posted by: TheMadcap on July 3, 2018 8:12pm

alphabravocharlie, well, then you better be ready to give up the constitutional assumption to privacy, because SCOTUS essentially decalred in Griswold v Connecticut that the right while not stated, can be implied through other explicit rights(and that is the case that Roe v Wade among many others was predicated on)

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 3, 2018 10:55pm

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 3, 2018 9:01pm

Threefifths: He who is human must be human from the beginning or he would not be human in the end.

And when dose that beginning start?

As far as contraception, it is widely recognized to cause more abortions for it is not entirely effective at preventing pregnancies. In other words, the more sex a society has outside of its natural end the more abortions are likely to occur precisely because of the mentality that thinks that chemically altering reproductive organs not to work properly is moral or even an objective good for women’s’ health. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between the chemical contraceptive mentality and those who would seek to change nature herself. But I digress… Peace, which is the end to which we all must strive.

So if contraception fails.Does not that person still have the right to Termination of the pregnancy ?

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 4, 2018 1:42pm

Threefifths:

“And when dose [sic] that beginning start?”

Fertilization.

“Does not that person still have the right to Termination of the pregnancy?”

No.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on July 5, 2018 7:49am

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on July 4, 2018 2:42pm Threefifths:

“And when dose [sic] that beginning start?”

Fertilization.

Based on what study?

“Does not that person still have the right to Termination of the pregnancy?”